Friday, September 28, 2012

I've been reading the Manosphere for the past several months and see a lot of dubious concepts in it, such as the "Alpha." Alphas are supposed to be good-looking guys with money who get all the women. An "Omega" is the guy at the bottom who gets nothing.

The word "Alpha' came from the study of wolves and it means "parent wolves." They are the only ones who bred, to limit having too many cubs. The lower-ranking wolves helped raise the cubs.

Since canines live in small, hierarchical packs, the Alpha couple leads all the dogs. There is a dog in second place, which leads the ones below it. The dog at the bottom, the Omega, leads no dog.

For people it's a lot different. The terms are relative, for one thing. A guy who's never had sex, never had a girlfriend and never kissed a girl is going to consider a guy with a girlfriend an Alpha.

For another thing people have self-consciousness, which is important. We're very aware of what's done to us, and we remember it.

So: why should an Omega not murder anyone above him? Answer: they do.

Seung-Hui Cho was the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 people. He of course was mentally ill, but he was made fun of his entire life, never had sex, never had a girlfriend and of course never kissed a girl.

People unbearably humiliated and ostracized get revenge, sometimes through murder. People who have been unbearably shamed try to restore their pride and self-esteem through revenge against those they believe have hurt them.

Then we have James Holmes, the Aurora shooter. He, too, was mentally ill, probably a paranoid schizophrenic, Still, he was a complete loser with women who couldn't even find a woman on a sex site. Even they rejected him.

As I read about Holmes: "James Holmes struck out with three women on an adult sex website shortly before he allegedly perpetrated the Colorado movie massacre...[he] was "a shy, pretty socially inept person."

Another Omega, not known at all today, was Charles Guiteau, the man who shot and killed President James A. Garfield in 1881.

Guiteau had joined a commune practicing " free love" and had been completely rejected by the women during the five years he spent there.

Author Candice Millard wrote of him: "Guiteau’s extravagant dreams and delusions persisted in the face of consistent and complete failure. Although the commune promised the pleasures of complex marriage, to Guiteau’s frustration, 'the Community women,' one of Oneida’s [the commune] members would later admit, 'did not extend love and confidence toward him.' In fact, so thorough was his rejection among the women that they nicknamed him 'Charles Gitout.' He bitterly complained that, while at the commune, he was 'practically a Shaker.'"

These men, alone, rejected, humiliated and ostracized, then get attention (revenge) by going out in a blaze of glory.

By the way, the German word "achtung" means both "attention" and "respect."

Writes the psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years studying violent inmates: "One of the most common fantasies I have heard from many of the most violent prison inmates is the scenario of going to their deaths in a hail of gunfire while killing as many people as possible before they themselves die."

The first recorded murder in Western mythology is when Cain slew Abel. Why? Because God rejected Cain’s sacrifice and accepted Abel’s.

“Unto Abel the Lord had respect…unto Cain the Lord had not respect.” So Cain, humiliated, attempted to replace his feelings of shame and humiliation with pride by murdering his brother, on whom he (inaccurately in this case) blamed his problems. It was revenge.

For that matter, the first recorded war in the Bible comes right after Cain and Abel, when Dinah’s brothers slaughtered the entire tribe of the man who had seduced Dinah. It was to them a matter of honor and pride and in their minds it could only be restored by wiping out all the men and taking all the women and wealth.

Gilligan said he always heard the same story as to why his interviewees said they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was “He dissed me” or else humiliated, mocked, insulted and ridiculed the prisoner’s children, wife, parents, friends. Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel: the feelings of humiliation followed by revenge manifesting itself as murder. (Gilligan also said, “The most dangerous men on earth are those who are afraid they are wimps.”)

"Omegas" aren't respected. They receive no recognition (the word "recognition" means "to look twice"). Then they make people pay attention to them by the easiest and quickest way - violence.

What is the shorthand for "lack of respect?" Dissed. "He disrespected me."

These Omegas are already dead inside. The word "mortification" means to "make dead" through overwhelming humiliation.

People who commit these kinds of crimes always feel justified since they consider it self-defense. And it certainly isn't going to help things now that there is shorthand word to describe them - "Omega." At the bottom. The exact opposite of an Alpha. A complete loser with nothing going for him.

If those terms - Alphas, Omega, etc. - ever become commonly used, it will get to the point people can just look at someone and say, "Omega." And after a lifetime of that, what do you think the response will be?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

A model is a role model. Some that have been used in the past: Babe Ruth, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant. In the recent past: Clint Eastwood (and he's still around even today).

Those were the movie stars. On TV? Andy Griffith, Ward Cleaver. There were even the silly ones, like Gilligan (who was in many ways a role model of what not to be).

Today? I can't really think of any.

There are books. Stephen King. Harry Potter. The Hunger Games. Comics books. Cartoons (my nephew, when he was little, was such a big fan of Bravestarr he had his mother make Bravestarr's uniform, which he wore around the house).

Then there are mentors. The biggest one is supposed to be your father, but with rise of female-dominated households (and women cannot raise boys) many fathers aren't very good role models anymore.

A mirror is someone in whom you can "see" what they think of you. If they show contempt toward you, you be certainly be able to perceive that. If they think you're funny and smart, you'll be able to see that.

These three concepts together create the cultural ocean in which we swim. And they are all very important.

We take these models and mentors, try out their ideas in society, and incorporate the workable ones into our core selves. Ideally, that is.

Mirrors are a little different. I am reminded of that saying, "We become what we behold." It applies to models and mentors, but mirrors, I think, are stronger. If you have a bad mirror from the time you are born, it is pretty damned difficult to not let it affect you.

There are entire schools of psychology that deal with mirrors. One of them that impresses me is known as Object Relations Theory, which deals with how parents mirror their infants. If what they say is true, then a lot of what we become runs back to how we are treated as infants.

Then we have to deal with the fact it is easier to shame someone that make them feel guilty. There is really only one word to describe guilt but look at all which describes shame - humiliation, ridicule, being dissed, insulted, mocked, made fun of...

For an infant, shame becomes before guilt.

Either way, whether shame or guilt, they're not something that should see all the time in the people who mirror them. Their models and mentors shouldn't do it, either.

A little bit is good but being overwhelmed with them has nothing but negative effects. In fact, some models, mentors and mirrors have become relentless propaganda designed to damage children.

Monday, September 24, 2012

The phrase "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence comes from the Greek word, "eudaimonia" and is best translated as "well-being" or "flourishing." You achieved this through "arete" or "excellence." This of course raises the question, what is excellence?

Perhaps, being best you can be, at what you are good at.

I've known people who could play the guitar at five years old. They became musicians. I had a girlfriend who would shinny up lightpoles at five and sit on top waving to cars. She became an athlete.

People often show what they are good at by the time they are five.

This is why schools shouldn't try to produce standardized products (except for reading, writing, and arithmetic) and should concentrate on developing inherent talents. They're really good at this when it comes to athletics but otherwise, no.

In 1960, journalist Gordon Young asked Carl Jung, “What do you consider to be more or less basic factors making for happiness in the human mind?” Jung answered with five things:

1. Good physical and mental health.

2. Good personal and intimate relationships, such as those of marriage, the family, and friendships.

3. The faculty for perceiving beauty in art and nature.

4. Reasonable standards of living and satisfactory work.

5. A philosophic or religious point of view capable of coping successfully with the vicissitudes of life.

Jung, always mindful of paradox, added, “All factors which are generally assumed to make for happiness can, under certain circumstances, produce the contrary. No matter how ideal your situation may be, it does not necessarily guarantee happiness.”

Jung's caution is why the Declaration says "pursuit of happiness" and not "guarantee of happiness."

The United States was originally founded on political and economic liberty, and what that produced was the best country on Earth. Freedom and liberty contribute the best to "reasonable standards of living and satisfactory work." Unfortunately it's been downhill in the country for a long time.

The more the State grows, the worse it is for everyone.

In fact, almost all of Jung's five keys to happiness are under attack by the State. Marriage and the relationships between men and women are under attack, and have been for a long time. If they weren't under attack, 49% of the people in this country wouldn't be single.

The government in the United States has become a behemoth, which means our liberty and freedom grows less and less every day. I don't know if it can be reversed or not.
But if it's not reversed, the flourishing and well-being of people will grow less or less every day.

Monday, September 17, 2012

I don’t like cats. In the past week I've had to splice three wires chewed through by a cat (I hate that particular cat).

I’m a pug person. Yet I’ve never saved a pug. But for some reason, I’ve been in two situations in which I tried to save one cat, and did save another. So, my cat karma being in the plus category, no cat can bother me again for the rest of my life.

The first encounter with the miserable world of helpless-and-harmless-animal-eating-murdercats was when I was about 11 or 12. I was walking home along a road that was deserted except for a grain elevator. Since it was Saturday, the elevator was closed.

I suddenly heard a meowing from the side of the road. When I investigated I found a kitten in the weeds. He – or she – was about two months old.

The reason I couldn’t tell if it was a he or she was the area in question was mangled beyond recognition. The bone was showing.

I was mystified as to how this mangled kitten ended up on the side of a deserted road. I had no idea how it was mangled in such a bizarre way, and still don’t have a clue. Did somebody dump it? I doubt it could have crawled from a house, the nearest one being a mile away.

I carried the cat home, told my parents, who called the vet and were told nothing could be done, so I put the kitten on a blanket in the garage and gave it some water. It didn’t last the night.

I buried it in the backyard, which was an annoyance since it was all stretched out in rigor mortis, so I had to dig a trench. It didn’t even have the decency to die curled up in a ball. Even dead, it had to torment me.

These days, I would have taken it to the vet to be euthanized, since it was beyond hope. But I was 11, maybe 12. I didn’t even know animals were euthanized.

Actually, I think I would have put it a cloth and put it in a freezer so it would go to sleep.

In college I was delivering pizzas in the rain and found a wet cat next to a dumpster. I put him in my car and dried him off with the heater. Then he jumped on me, started purring and kneading me. It’s not going to work, cat! I’m not taking you home!

I found a dry spot and put him there. Damn cats, trying to play on my sympathy and then leaves mutilated dead mice on the front and back porches. Or brings them into house alive so it can torture them to death at its convenience. Bastards!

My next major encounter with carnivorous evil killercats was decades later, when I saw one cat fall down a storm drain after fighting with another cat. I dragged the fifty-pound manhole cover off, pulled the cat up with some wire, and so saved its utterly worthless life. It ran off without a thank-you.

I spent half-an-hour out of my life saving one member of this foul and most foreign species.

So listen up cats! After all I’ve done for you, I expect some gratitude. Since cats are incapable of gratitude, I’d appreciate it if you just left me alone. In other words, I DON’T WANT TO SAVE ANY MORE CATS!

Stop coming up to me on the street begging for food and trying to follow me home. I DON’T WANT YOU. I DON’T LIKE CATS!

Sunday, September 16, 2012

There is a bit of a problem with sex roles these days, and they can't continue on the course they’re on.

My view is that feminism was not a response to oppression, but boredom. Men’s inventions had made life so much easier that the more intelligent women, many of them not being able to overcome the challenge of leisure, became bored and wanted to move into the traditionally male fields.

One of the problems is that they did not want to become coal miners or loggers or steel mill workers or garbage men. They didn’t want any hot, dangerous, dirty, sweaty jobs. They wanted to move into relatively easy, indoor, well-paying work.

Since they were now working full-time, they wanted men to share housework. This does seem fair, but what these women were saying is, “I want access to the more pleasant male role, but I want men to help with the less-pleasant female role.” But men changed and accepted this.

But at the same time, men were not allowed access to the more pleasant female role, such as staying home with the kids. Almost all women would be outraged if they made a very high salary and their husbands expected their wives to support them.

See what I’m saying? Women wanted access to the good part of being a male, but not the bad part. They wanted men to accept the unpleasant parts of the female role but not the pleasant parts. So where exactly did men benefit in all of this?

And at the same time, hallucinations about “patriarchy” and “male oppression” became the accepted reality. Men, who are responsible for civilization and technology, became the Bad Guys. Women, who as Camille Paglia so famously noted, would be unable to advance civilization beyond the level of grass huts, became the Good Guys.

Again, where exactly did men benefit from all of this?

Worse, Affirmative Action, which means “White Men Need Not Apply,” has enshrined quotas into law and prevented qualified men from being hired in the numbers they should be hired.

So what happened is women with advanced degrees and making good salaries looked around and found there was a shortage of men they thought were suitable. So, without husband, home and children, they became hostile and bitter – and I have seen many of them.

I have also seen many of these women making good salaries still expect men to ask them out. I’ve met women who in their entire lives never asked any man they were interested in out for a cup of coffee.

Again, they didn’t want to shoulder any of the more unpleasant aspects of the male role. They didn’t want to risk rejection, and still don’t. However, it’s still okay for the man to risk it.

I’ve met women who married the wrong guy (who asked them out), got divorced, got drunk one night, and called some guy they knew years ago, wondering if he was available. Then they found he was happily married, with children, many years ago. Who’s to blame for this – him, or her?

Years ago I drove a taxi and got to know quite a few hookers. It was enlightening the things I saw. I’d take these girls to their customers and wait for them. A noticeable number of the guys didn’t do anything but watch some videos with the girls. They were paying for their company on a lonely Friday night.

Where is “patriarchy” and “male oppression” in something like that?

I can’t see these unnatural sex roles continuing. They’ll have to change; I just don’t know when. But sooner or later, they’ll change - once the heartbreak gets bad enough.

Fortitude or Courage - forbearance, endurance, and the ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation.

Now let's invert those qualities and see what we have.

People who aren't prudent act inappropriately. Do I really have to explain that? In fact, do I really have to explain any of the inversions? People who aren't just, who lack self-restraint and so are impulsive, and who are cowards?

Does the phrase, "selfish and inconsiderate" come to mind?

I know some guys who are cads when it comes to women. They lie, try to manipulate, they have very little self-control, they're self-centered, and they're cowards. They live their lives the exact opposite of the Four Cardinal Virtues. Not surprisingly they ruin their lives.

I've been reading the Manosphere for the last few months and there is lot of dangerous nonsense in it. I see praise for the Dark Triad - narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Supposedly women drool after these guys, who are the worst of cads.

Talk about deluded.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a mental illness. These people essentially have two selves - grandiose on top, devalued on bottom. They're narcissistic blowhards covering up their feelings of shame and humiliation.

These are the traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance.

Exaggerate achievements and talents.

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love.

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment.

Need constant attention and admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy.

Have obsessive self-interest.

Pursue mainly selfish goals.

As for Machiavelli, that is a political philosophy and those who think it has much to do with narcissism and psychopathy don't know much about The Prince. In fact, I suspect they've never read it.

Now we come to psychopaths. There is nothing admirable whatsoever about a psychopath. They have no shame, no guilt and no conscience. They're human beings only on the outside. Inside, they're monsters.

These are the traits of a psychopath (Anti-Social Personality Disorder):

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

I've said this before: all serial killers are psychopaths. They kill dozens of people (Gary Ridgway killed at least 71 women) and they torture, mutilate, rape corpses and sometimes eat them.

The nonviolent psychopaths still have no empathy, guilt, shame or conscience. But they still cause horrendous problems that spread out like circles in a pond when you throw a rock in.

Now why is it when women show the Dark Triad traits all men know the catastrophic problems they cause in relationships? Then why do men exhibiting them think it will be a good thing in their dealings with women?

The theory behind the Dark Triad is that all women are instinctively attracted to them. Certainly some are - the worst ones, the more immature and disturbed ones. But for a long-term relationship, since it doesn't work for men with such women, it's not going to work for women attracted to such them.

All of this belief in the Dark Triad is based on evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary theory is not a science and psychology just barely. I can come up with evolutionary explanations by the dozens - all logical, all coherent, all foolish.

There are very popular sites on the Internet - such as Shrink4Men and Dr. Helen - which give men advice on how to identify and deal with these demented, Dark Triad women.

There appears to be a constitutional bases to psychopathy, but it is activated by society, specifically horrendous child abuse - being humiliated and shamed. They cover those feelings up with a conscienceless grandiose self.

The only conclusion I come to is that the self-appointed "leaders" of the Manosphere are insecure men, with feelings of shame and humiliation, who are trying to cover it up by pretending they are Jedis of the Dark Triad.

It ain't gonna work. For one things, it's not possible to turn yourself into a narcissist or a psychopath.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it,
no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.” - attributed to the Buddha.

My experience, and the experience of the world, has been that bullies are cowards. Those who are blowhards on top are wimps underneath. The gaudier the hood the cheaper the patter.

That last description was directed by Bogart's Philip Marlowe character to Wilmer the gunsel in The Maltese Falcon.

Wilmer was a tiny man who compensated for it by carrying two huge semiautomatic .45s. Marlowe stripped Wilmer of his .45s at one time. Wilmer was humiliated, and significantly, being a coward, wouldn't attack Marlowe face-to-face, but kicked him in the head when he was unconscious. (By the way, a "gunsel" originally meant the passive partner in a homosexual encounter, i.e., the one fucked in the butt.)

Later, when humiliated even further, Wilmer began to cry.

I have several other stories. When I was in the eighth grade I was in the boy's room when half-a-dozen boys entered. One had a big cocky grin on his face. He started fighting with a boy named Greg.

Greg was a genetic catastrophe. He walked hunched over and with his mouth open, his skin was grey, his hair a mousy brown, and he wore these bizarre glasses that magnified his eyes and made them fuzzy-looking. He was scrawny. He looked weak. He wasn't.

Apparently the cocky kid had been picking on Greg and thought he could easily beat him up. That's not what happened.

The fight lasted about ten seconds. Greg really tried to hurt this kid. I saw something I had never even imaged - Greg tried to rip the kid's face off. I was impressed by that.

The cocky kid immediately collapsed and started begging to left alone.

Cocky blowhard on top, coward underneath.

I saw the same dynamic later when I was still in the eighth grade. A bully by the name of Don decided to mouth off to a tiny little wrestler named Phil. Phil was about 5'4", but he beat Don so badly that within several seconds Don was begging to be left alone. He was a coward.

I could go on but I won't. All I'll say is that every time I've seen a big mouth blowhard, in every case the possessor was a wimp underneath. It's been noticed a lot in fiction, such as Mr. Bumble the beadle in Oliver Twist. Dickens out-and-out said he was a bully and a coward, one who was beaten up by his wife.

Or try Scut Farkus and his little toady Grover Dill in A Christmas Story. Farkus,a bully, ends up beaten and crying by Ralphie. Dill, himself a coward, runs off and makes no attempt to defend Farkus.

The problem with this blowhard/wimp dynamic is that a lot of these blowhards are good at running their mouths. They can come across as confident and charming. People who are lost and insecure fall for them, which is why there exists the ancient observation of sheeple being led to slaughter by the wolves (and in Pareto's view, the clever foxes).

Think of how the words "charm" and "spell" mean "the use of words." As Rudyard Kipling wrote, "Words, of course, are the most powerful drug ever invented."

Millions of people fell for the charming, confident Hitler. At the end this coward killed himself. People wonder how Bush and Obama ever got into office. They came across as confident, charming men who acted as if they knew all the answers.

People seek meaning, importance and community. They want security. And the mass of people will always fall for the confident, charming people who act as if they know all the answers. Even if they don't.

One of the easiest way to recognize followers is that they memorize everything the leaders says, as if it's the Gospel truth. Both the leaders and followers become outraged if criticized. They become irrational and hysterical and froth at the mouth. They can't bear the slightest criticism because they are convinced they know the Truth.

They're blowhards on top, wimps underneath. They're can't even stand on their own two feet.

From every cult that existed in the past, to modern ones (Scientology, Objectivism, feminism, the Manosphere), those who act confidently, who have charm, who act as if they have all the answers, will always have sheeple who not only follow them - they will rabidly defend them.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Feminism is based the envy of men, and in response the Manosphere is based on the envy of women. Not all of each is based on envy, but there is a lot of it in both.

Not all of feminism is bad, since nothing is all good or all bad. Let's say it's 98.7% bad. The Manosphere, being in some ways a needed corrective to the evils of feminism, has some good in it. Let's say about 80% of it is nonsense.

The easiest way to identify envy when when the envied is devalued when they don't deserve it. That is the lesson of the story of the Garden of Eden, which while not literally true, is figuratively true. No myth lasts thousands of years unless there is great truth to it.

The serpent attempts to being down Adam and Eve because he envies them. He is a symbol of hate, envy, feelings of humiliation, and the desire for revenge (John Milton clearly illustrated this in Paradise Lost).

These days, the serpent would either be a narcissist or a psychopath (a psychopath is the extreme form of a narcissist). These people devalue other people (turn them into things) and cover up their feelings of humiliation and envy with grandiosity.

Feminism, itself a symbol of the serpent, has attempted to destroy men because of some women's (let's say leftist/lesbian women) hate and envy of men, and who desire revenge on them because they feel they have been humiliated. Which they haven't, but there is no talking any sense with the self-righteousness and self-pity of the self-deluded. That, of course, also means men, which is why it's almost impossible to talk any sense into the Lost Boys of the Manosphere.

Some of these feminists were literally insane, such as the Jewish lesbian Shulamith Firestone, author of the worthless but dangerous The Dialectic of Sex, who died recently and spend the last few decades of her life incapacitated by schizophrenia.

Others, such as Betty Friedan, envied men because she was excruciatingly ugly. Gloria Steinem never followed any of her beliefs that she prescribed for other women, just as the "leaders" of the Manosphere don't follow what they prescribe for the deluded Lost Boys of the Manosphere. Exactly why Steinem envied men I don't know, but it's not as if I'm going to make an extended study of her hypocritical life.

There are certain self-appointed "leaders" of the Manosphere, such as narcissists like Vox Day and Roissy, who are the Manosphere's version of Friedan and Steinem. Like Friedan and Steinem, Day and Roissy will follow them into oblivion.

Because of the Manophere's envy of women, there is a attempt by some of the men in it to devalue women. For the PUA's (Pick-Up Artists) this means objectifying women - seeing them as objects merely for sex. This reducing women to objects is based on these men's feelings of humiliation and insecurity, which they cover up with attempts at power, domination and control.

The story of Cain and Abel is relevant here. Cain is humiliated, blames his problems on Abel and murders him. This is humiliation followed by revenge. Strictly speaking, it is perceived humiliation followed by the desire for revenge.

Feminists want revenge on men because they delude themselves they've been humiliated and many of the Manosphere bloggers believe they've been humiliated by women so they devalue them and want revenge on them. They want to replace shame with pride.

The purpose of feminism is to humiliate men. In response, that is why some men have come up with the concept of the Alpha (which per se doesn't exist) as an extreme reaction against feelings of helplessness, that they are a little boy, a wimp

One way to understand normal people is to look at the extremes, since extreme behavior is just normal behavior taken to the breaking point. Everyone is susceptible to humiliation and envy.

The psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years interviewing thousands of prisoners, said he always heard the same story as to why they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was “He dissed me” or else mocked, insulted and ridiculed the prisoner’s children, wife, parents, friends.

Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel: the feeling of humiliation followed by revenge manifesting itself as murder.

Gilligan also said, "an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one’s manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act."

This can include violent verbal attacks or devaluing people in other ways...such as seeing them as objects to be manipulated.

John Douglas, the retired FBI profiler of serial killers, and the author of several best-selling books, stated that every serial murderer he encountered was an “inadequate” type (i.e., he felt humiliated) who covered it up with grandiosity (i.e., an immense Satanic pride) and sought revenge on anyone who reminded him of those who believed caused his problems in the first place. Again, humiliation leading to murder.

Wrote Douglas in The Anatomy of Motive about one mass murder: “…this crime…[was] a kind of revenge…it was retaliation for some perceived wrong – real or imagined – perpetrated against the killer” (in another case, a teenage school shooter said, “The world has wronged me, and I could take it no more” — his pride was hurt).

Chris Stout wrote in The Psychology of Terrorism: “The first stage in the development of terrorism begins when intolerable life conditions cause suffering that produces…a malignant alteration in the personality caused by the repeated failure to respond to overwhelming trauma.” That pretty much explains the worst of the Manosphere, since the abuse of men by feminism (enforced by law) has not been addressed by society and the government.

What surprised me about the Manosphere is the ignorance of evil. Many in it idealize psychopaths and narcissists, based on the fact they have no idea what they are. These are the Alphas, which don't really exist.

The worst of psychopaths are the sexual sadists known as serial killers. These men torture, murder and mutilate women. Some of them are cannibals and necrophiliacs.

Outwardly, these men appear to be friendly and charming and confident. Inwardly they have no conscience and no guilt. They're monsters, not human beings. They have invariably been horribly abused as children, and when adult cover up their fragile personalities with the aforementioned attempts as power, control and domination. They are incapable of love.

I recently saw on TV the late Jerry Brudos. He was laughing and making jokes and appeared to be a friendly and charming man. Yet this is a man who killed about six women before he was caught. In one case he kidnapped a young woman, strangled her, had sex with her corpse, cut off one of her feet (he had a shoe fetish), then went inside and ate dinner with his family.

He would also hang women in his garage and let them dangle for two or three days, occasionally visiting them to rape their corpses.

This is what the worst of psychopaths do. The lesser versions, such as narcissists and borderlines, still murder women, rape them, beat them, and abuse them in various ways.

Bizarrely, the Lost Boys of the Manosphere idealize psychopaths, narcissists and borderlines, referring to dangerous concepts such as the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy). Women supposedly instinctively drool after such men.

Some women do. There are also women who are serial killer groupies and also women who think when men abuse and beat them it's their fault for "making them mad."

I mentioned the concept of the Alpha. Since it means nothing it can mean anything. Some speak of them as rich, good-looking guys who get all the women. They essentially have no conscience and see women merely as objects to be seduced.

Some see Alphas as more along the lines of chivalrous men.

If you do want to use the concept of the Alpha, the seducers are the cads. They are cowards who are narcissists. They generally collapse by middle-age. I've seen it more than once.

Men who babble they are Alphas or Pick-Up Artists are not. They are men who have feelings of humiliation and envy, who feel they have been rejected and disrespected by women, so they devalue them to reduce their power ("Since I believe they have abused me my entire life I will objectify them so they so longer have any power over me").

This is why exists the old observation that all bullies are cowards. Bluster and bravado on top, disguising feelings of powerlessness and humiliation.

The good Alphas are the chivalrous men. Chivalry is based on the better warrior virtues and evolved only from Christianity.

Since there are at least two kinds of Alphas, and one concept is the exact opposite of the other, this is why the concept of the Alpha means nothing.

Why do younger men fall for this nonsense? Because they are lost and have never learned what it is to be a man. Everyone seeks meaning, importance, community and security. They seek mentors and models they believe will educate them, even if their mentors and models are self-deluded frauds and what they teach ends up to be dangerous.

The curious and ironic thing about the Dark Triad Pick-Up Artists is that they are not admirable men. They are altering their behavior and personalities merely to get laid. This means women are ruling them and telling them what to do. These men are pathetic, about which they are clueless.

This flaw in certain men was studied hundreds of years ago. The conclusion reached is that a man does not does not alter his behavior or character to merely get laid. Such men are cowards. And I have seen that, too.

There is a useful book by Waller Newell called, What is a Man: 3000 Years of Wisdom. There are some useful comments by some of the reviewers:

"Thus, many of our young men are driven by their lust rather than learning to love the beauty of women and enjoying the simple pleasure of observation. Boys find themselves full of rage, becoming aggressive and even violent instead of learning to focus their energy to set right what has been made wrong."

Exactly right.

Another reviewer wrote this:

"Manly Virtue:

"There's nothing more humiliating for a genuinely real man than to betray the code of manly honor, that once consisted of a canon of ethics called; 'manly virtue.' In Latin, vir means man, and a man of honor controlled his bodily passions and fears with fortitude, endurance and grace. Those are not virtues which most of today's men hope to acquire, nor their female partners promote, since a genuinely real man cannot be defined solely with female aspiration.

"In classical times, these virtues were Prudence, Courage; abstinence, and Justice. Being dignified, courteous, a temperate devotee to a chivalry of Justice and truth was the ultimate social aspiration for men. These virtues have no meaning unless exercised by free men and women. But it was the clear conviction of the ancients that if citizens were not raised with these virtues, to which Faith, Hope, and Charity, were added by the Christians, democracy would soon deteriorate into soft, then hard tyranny."

Cads demonstrate the Seven Deadly Vices. Chivalrous men try to live their lives by the Seven Heavenly Virtues. This is why the Alpha (sic) cannot be both at once.

The Lost Boys of the Manosphere would do better to pay attention to ancient wisdom rather than confused modern concepts.

"The PUAs and Gamers...are comprised mostly of men who bear the deepest afflictions of a fatherless culture. Abandoned to feminist governance by their male elders and bereft of masculine guidance, they have been dropped into the solipsistic void that was the only existence feminism ever could have offered them outside direct servitude. Stripped of values and consciousness and the ability to be circumspect, they have turned feral; so unable to form community or embrace brotherhood that they have shrugged off the desire for either." - Paul Elam